APHC010498832024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3521]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8036/2024 Between:

Y ELAMILLI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O H.NO. 9-163, ATTILI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND

1. T HE STATE OF AP, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, AMARAVATI.

2. Y ELLAMILLI PRASAD, S/O POULU, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC.

TEACHER, MPP SCHOOL BOKKAVARIPALEM, H/O MAMUDURU VILLAGE PEMANTRA MANDAL, W.G.DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner/accused:

MEDURI VARA PRASADA RAO Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):

1. T DIWAKAR REDDY

2. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court made the following:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity „the Cr.P.C.,‟) seeking to quash the proceedings in C.R.P.No.28 of 2023 dated 03.04.2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District.

2. Sri M. Vara Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the 2^nd respondent, her legally wedded husband, married her on 22.02.2006 as per Christian rites, and despite receiving dowry, subjected her to cruelty for additional dowry after a brief period of marital harmony. It is further submitted that in 2009, the petitioner was driven out of the matrimonial home and has since been residing with her parents, and that she lodged a complaint under Section 498-A of „the IPC‟ against the 2^nd respondent and his family members. It is contended that the learned Trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record, and therefore the order of the Revisional Court is liable to be set aside.

3. Per contra, Mr.T.Diwakar Reddy, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the learned Revisional Court correctly appreciated the factual circumstances of the case and properly upheld the judgment of the learned Trial Court. It is submitted that there are no infirmities, no material irregularities, and no valid grounds to quash the order passed by the learned Revisional Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2. Perused the record.

5. The petitioner is the wife of Respondent No.2. She filed a case in M.C. No.17 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku. The said Court allowed the maintenance case and granted Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner towards maintenance from the date of the order. Though the petitioner claimed Rs.12,000/- per month, the learned Magistrate granted only Rs.10,000/- per month.

6. Challenging the said maintenance order, the petitioner filed a revision case before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari District. The Revisional Court, vide order dated 03.04.2024 in C.R.P. No.28 of

2023, dismissed the revision case.

7. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the revision case, the petitioner has filed the present criminal petition. As observed by the learned Revisional Court in paragraph No.17, the petitioner is also receiving Rs.2,500/- per month pursuant to the order passed in D.V.C. No.1 of 2020.

8. It is further stated that in D.O.P.No.6367 of 2015, filed before the learned Principal District Court, Eluru, an ex-parte decree of divorce was granted. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 contracted a second marriage and is blessed with a female child. However, the relationship between the petitioner and Respondent No.2 is not in dispute.

9. The learned Trial Court, after meticulous consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence adduced by both parties, and the financial capacity of Respondent No.2, has rightly granted Rs.10,000/- per month towards maintenance. In addition, the pet